I want a camera that will shoot lots of files of the same scene, such as a night skyscape/landscape. It will save all the separate files, but also keep updating a single file that is the average or some other function of all the separate exposures. The updated file will be visible on the LCD by clicking the IR remote thingy. Will let me know early on if it's worth it to keep adding more exposures. I could go on.

That resembles the "Live Bulb" and "Live Time" options on the E-M5. In the "Bulb" and "Time" long exposure modes, there is the option of having the rear screen (or eye-level EVF) display successive updated versions of the image so far, at a selected interval (1/2s, 1s, 2s ... 60s). It beats guesswork with very long exposure night shots!

So want you want can be done, with the right sensor technology.

P. S. Also, another vote for a tiltable accessory EVF.

P. P. S. I just noticed that SZRitter mentioned this in the previous post!

At 36MP, I'm already oversampling for moderate size prints. No need for more pixels. Unfortunately, the advance rumblings point to 50+MP. A high quality optical finder is mandatory.A modular finder system would be fantastic, but they'd have to cram those circuit boards that sit in the prism housing somewhere, not to mention how to run all the trick layered transparent displays.They could build a 4X or 6X flip-in magnifier into the finder, but that'd be too extremely professional, I'm afraid.

Please no on 50+ mp. Will have to shoot at 1/2000 just to get a sharp frame. As well, not sure nikon can make a camera that af's that accurately to get 50+ sharp.Would love the d800 chip at 7-8 fps and better af. Global shutter would be much more exciting to me.

Please no on 50+ mp. Will have to shoot at 1/2000 just to get a sharp frame. As well, not sure nikon can make a camera that af's that accurately to get 50+ sharp.

50 real isn't that much more than 36. More pixels never deliver less detail all other things being equal. I have personally never gotten as many tack sharp hand held images with any other camera compared to the D800. The secret? A mode and Auto ISO set to automatically work with a speed one stop faster than 1/focal length.

AF is extremely reliable and accurate on my body, so the AF is a brilliant design. I believe that Nikon may have had a hard time manufacturing reliably all the D800 at its price point but I am not concerned at the expected price point of the D4x.

The 14-24mm Nkon zoom is a jewel--nothing like it as far as wide lenses for 35mm cameras. The MFT charts validate that claim. Pick one up and start shooting with one. You'll be blown away by the crisp colors, well-controlled linearity, and minimal CA. The latter two are completely corrected in ACR.

The secret? A mode and Auto ISO set to automatically work with a speed one stop faster than 1/focal length.

One stop faster is not nearly enough if you want to be safe.

Here's 85 mm on a D800, shot at 1/250 sec. For the first I held my breath and braced against a wall. For the second I was deliberately careless. Not waving the camera in the air, but something like a grab shot in a hurry. Both are 1:1 crops, 800 x 532 pixels.

Here's 85 mm on a D800, shot at 1/250 sec. For the first I held my breath and braced against a wall. For the second I was deliberately careless. Not waving the camera in the air, but something like a grab shot in a hurry. Both are 1:1 crops, 800 x 532 pixels.

I use the 85mm f1.4 a lot these days (amazing lens btw). The D800 rounds the shutter speed at 1/200 when using the settings described above.

I have less than 2% images where hand shake affects the sharpness in a visible way and the image remains totally usable even for those 2%.

I am a tripod guy so I would describe my hand shooting abilities as being below average.

Agreed. I wasn't really arguing, merely pointing out that with a 36 MP sensor and a good lens, the old 1/focal length guide isn't very useful any more. You need to be careful at virtually any shutter speed. The two examples above are really tiny pieces of the full frame, and with a 12 MP D700 I'm not sure they would have been distinguishable to any practical degree.

So the D800 is already very much a tripod/live view/mirror up/cable release piece of equipment, at least if you want to make full use of all the pixels. The D(X)-series, on the other hand, is targeted mainly at photojournalists. Built to survive an earthquake and extremely fast - those are the top priorities for a journalist. And that's also why the price tag is three times higher.

The point I'm trying to make is that a 50 MP sensor is of limited usefulness in the target market. Those who really need high resolution will probably be better served with a D800, they don't need high speed or military-grade build. I know I don't.

Have to disagree with your comment about the D(X)-series been the photojournalists camera. The D series is more fitting to the photojournalists and the DX is more suited to my needs as an advertising photographer. So for my type of work 50MP is perfectly suited to me.

The D(X)-series, on the other hand, is targeted mainly at photojournalists. Built to survive an earthquake and extremely fast - those are the top priorities for a journalist. And that's also why the price tag is three times higher.

This is true for the D3/D4, but the D3x was clearly targeting the landscape crowd.

Slow shooting, highest image quality with the reliability needed for the toughest endeavours.

Please no on 50+ mp. Will have to shoot at 1/2000 just to get a sharp frame.

Increased sensor resolution can only increase image sharpness at the same shutter speed, never decrease it, in any sane comparison: viewing images of different pixel counts at equal size. If you suffer a compulsion to view high resolution images at 100% pixels on-screen, so viewing only a tiny part if the image at a time, then downsample before viewing.

Ditto for the myth that diffraction effects getting worse when a sensor or film of higher resolution is used.

50 real isn't that much more than 36. More pixels never deliver less detail all other things being equal. I have personally never gotten as many tack sharp hand held images with any other camera compared to the D800. The secret? A mode and Auto ISO set to automatically work with a speed one stop faster than 1/focal length.

AF is extremely reliable and accurate on my body, so the AF is a brilliant design. I believe that Nikon may have had a hard time manufacturing reliably all the D800 at its price point but I am not concerned at the expected price point of the D4x.

No reas˘ to think that

The only draw back is larger files and possibly slower shooting.

Cheers,Bernard

Bernard, You always say that but your an f16 tripod guy. Those of us that shoot moving subjects wide open will tell you the d800 is good but not close to great. There is a LOT of room for improvement. Hopefully a d4x will improve on that. The firmware update was a huge improvement. No we just need 2-3 more massive improvements and we are good.

You always say that but your an f16 tripod guy. Those of us that shoot moving subjects wide open will tell you the d800 is good but not close to great. There is a LOT of room for improvement. Hopefully a d4x will improve on that. The firmware update was a huge improvement. No we just need 2-3 more massive improvements and we are good.

Well, my comments are of course based on those images that I shoot without tripods.

I have a little baby girl who moves a lot and have a high success rate of tack sharp images on the eyes shooting my 85mm f1.4 at f2.0 indoors.

I also do shoot quite a bit with my 300 f2.8 VR at f2.8 and have again a very high success rate here too (higher in fact).

I have noticed an important variation of success rate depending on the settings used though. My best results by far have been in 9 focus points mode. And yes, I did notice a further improvement with the latest firmware, but it was far from poor before that.

In my results, the D800's AF is superior to that of the D3 and D3x that I used previously.

Like I said as well, it is better.......As well, larger files will slow down tethering even more than it already is. I can't think of a reason I want more than 33mp. Not sure there is a single nikon lens that can resolve 33mp except in the very center anyway.

And you said 50+ isn't a big jump? It's bigger than 24 to 33 was and that showed off a huge focusing difference(what seams sharp at 24mp can be seriously out at 33). This is a mp race for advertising sake. Would rather have high quality 33mp than same at 50+. As well, would rather have a stop or two of more iso than more mp.(this is with the d4x) For the d800x, make it huge for dirt shooters.